dagblog - Comments for "Mr. Trump, You're No Teddy Roosevelt"

I understand why you made the

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:10:00 +0000

In reply to I apologize Mike. I was not

I understand why you made the inference, but I was disappointed to see the comment thread turn into a debate about trade policy, which was tangential to the main theme of personal and national character. To steer the discussion back to the topic, I explicitly disavowed taking any trade policy position. But you kept pushing the China trade point, and that's when I chided you for thread hijacking.

It's not that I don't want a discussion about trade. It's a worthy topic, and I was sincere when I encouraged you write your post own about it. But it's not the topic of this post.

FTR, Roosevelt and the other progressives wanted to reduce tariffs because they regarded them as hidden taxes on the poor and corrupt giveaways to big corporations, but hardly anyone in those days supported free trade. So when TR rejected isolationism, he did not mean that the U.S. should drop all trade barriers.

You won't quit. China is

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:18:00 +0000

In reply to I apologize Mike. I was not

You won't quit. China is known for its Great Wall and its closed isolation since inauspicious events of 1421. But in the last 25 years, China has become a much more global player in all areas, not just offshoring (which is more inbound in cause anyway). The US, on the other hand, is expressing more and more a fear of the world, the "other", whether Mexican or Muslim, and that's what Trump's wall is about, immigration and perceived security, period.

I'm sure I could fit a global warming or drugs or energy message in there, but Michael's intent was and is rather clear.

I apologize Mike. I was not

HSG — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:51:48 +0000

In reply to Hal, as I already stated,

I apologize Mike. I was not trying to hijack your blog. I understood your argument to be that Trump is a weak man who, unlike T.R., is afraid to engage in world affairs. You supported this thesis, as I understood, by noting that he wants to build a literal wall between us and Mexico to keep Latin Americans out and a figurative wall between us and China to keep Chinese goods out. The reason that I inferred you were including Trump's proposed trade policy in your criticism is because you juxtaposed China with the literal wall in this passage: "How ironic that in the 21st century, China has reinvented itself as an aggressive, globally engaged superpower while the future president of the United States promises to make America “great again” by retreating into safety behind “'a great, great wall.'”

To the extent you were, as you say you were, criticizing Trump for "isolationism" in "trade", I believe my commentary remains on point.

Some folks won't take a hint

oldenGoldenDecoy — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:07:53 +0000

In reply to Hal, as I already stated,

Some folks won't take a hint . . .

~OGD~

Oh, I have a good idea about

Michael Maiello — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:01:29 +0000

In reply to Trump is calling for us to

Oh, I have a good idea about how that's going to play out.

Hal, as I already stated,

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:43:09 +0000

In reply to Trump's call for a wall

Hal, as I already stated, this post is not about trade policy. So rather than hijack the thread to discuss your preferred issue, please write your own post.

Trump's call for a wall

HSG — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:01:48 +0000

In reply to The "great, great wall" was a

Trump's call for a wall between the US and Mexico is ineffably wrong. It is also cruel. We agree that it represents an attempt to isolate us from a greatly exaggerated problem. By startling contrast, Trump is correct, even arguably bold, to call for a change our economic relationship with the Asian superpower. I say he is correct because, as noted above, trade with China has been extremely harmful to us and how it has fueled the totalitarian state's rise from a regional player to a worldwide threat, I say the policy change is arguably bold because very powerful people are profiting from cheap Chinese labor despite the fact that American workers are net losers.

Trump is calling for us to

HSG — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:45:53 +0000

In reply to " ... and the loss of nearly

Trump is calling for us to rewrite the rules under which we engage in trade with China and to withdraw from the TPP. He is right on both counts.

1) "Growth of unions in China

HSG — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:45:07 +0000

In reply to Growth of unions in China.

1) "Growth of unions in China" (emphasis supplied)- although you link to this expression, the article which you cite makes clear there is but one union in China and it is state-controlled (not a real workers union at all in other words). Workers cannot form their own unions and have no control over the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. Moreover, per your reference, the totalitarian Communist party has been arresting and detaining labor rights activists part as "part of larger move in recent years, especially under President Xi Jinping, to tighten up on all kinds of rights advocacy and open criticism of government policies."

2) US exports may have, as you write, "continually grown outside the 2008 crash" but our trade deficit with China continues to worsen. It was the biggest ever in 2015.

3) If we had hit some sort of manufacturing capacity in the 90s due to a labor shortage, we would have seen rampant wage inflation. This did not happen. Moreover, to the extent that there was a shortage of workers, the result would have been mostly salutary as wages would have risen and, in relatively short order, oft-lamented productivity increases would have alleviated the crisis.

4) Past pollution in the Los Angeles basin resulted mostly from inefficient automobiles. The Clean Air Act, catalytic converters, and state and local regulations have made the air cleaner but there's still work to be done. Trade with China greatly exacerbates the worldwide environmental crisis because, as I wrote, China's new environmental laws, which you praise, are poorly enforced. Moreover, Chinese imports have to be transported across the ocean either by jet or, more likely, diesel-powered containers ships. Both methods are terrible for the environment.

5) We run trade deficits with Mexico and Canada.

And it's silly to think we

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:55:57 +0000

In reply to The "great, great wall" was a

And it's silly to think we could make our way in the post-Soviet 90's without addressing the poverty of 1.3 billion Chinese with nukes and a 5 million man army - seems to me the outcome has been quite positive - the US has done quite well and most of its problems are internal (did we really have to waste a trillion dollars on Mideast wars? how does that compare with our China trade deficit?), while China is by and large a cooperative member of the global community.